Also, what does Brazil have to do with this? I live here. Are you under the impression that Brazil is under the rule of a dictator or something?
Also, what does Brazil have to do with this? I live here. Are you under the impression that Brazil is under the rule of a dictator or something?
On your first paragraph it seems to me a reasonable argument that if all the chemical companies in Germany dragged their feet, obfuscated, and ideally just outright refused to supply the government with poisonous gases, once it became clear they were being used on people, less people would have died.
Someone showing authoritarian tendencies does not mean the country is under authoritarian rule. I don't like Bolsonaro but he is very far from having any real power in the country. And I would say the same of Trump. I don't know anything about the others.
>On your first paragraph it seems to me a reasonable argument that if all the chemical companies in Germany
Why would they do that? Hitler was popular because he actually fixed a lot of problems in Germany at the time. Either way, my argument is still that businesses shouldn't support or not support any particular politician. They should just move on with their business impartially, even if "democracy" is being threatened or if their product is being used for evil. It's not your job to judge how people use your technology.
Not sure why reading a censored German press would give you an accurate view of public opinion, either; and the German citizens' writings will vary depending on which citizens you read, and how circumspect they were about writing.
[0]: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/...
Since you recommended me a book, I recommend you this book in return https://www.amazon.com/Human-Smoke-Beginnings-World-Civiliza...
I didn't intend to recommend a book - the link is just a graph of Trump's approval polls over time - but I thank you for yours. I'm not a particularly big fan of 'official narratives', not least because I study issue frames and so many of them are self-serving.
Both engaged in many of the same drives towards furthering their own personal political agendas during their respective administrations and while Trump says many things more baldly, and certainly lies much more flippantly, I fail to see how either his executive decisions or administrative pushes were or are in any notable way actually more authoritarian than those of Obama.
Just because one leader speaks more blandly than another doesn't mean that their fundamental governing power is much different, or that the more bellicose sounding figure is somehow an authoritarian if he or she is still fully constrained by the rest of a democratic government apparatus.
Furthermore, many if not most of the tendencies towards much broader presidential authority that Trump currently enjoys were established by a whole history of executive expansion which came before his term, and some of those started under much less visibly aggressive presidents. Focusing on what the orange man says more than on the deeper dynamics behind his office seems to me like more an exercise in ideological labeling than sound analysis of what authoritarian leadership means.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/13301372676801863...
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/13304872462360289...
https://twitter.com/LizRNC/status/1330186217355350020
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/13303679886215946...
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/13305556452134830...
> If you were a businessman in Germany during WW2 you would not have been a brave warrior fighting to preserve democracy, you'd just have moved on with your life and kept running your business, as would have (and as did) most people.
Different people have different opinions about right and wrong. A different set behaviors by a large number of people would bring about a different outcome. Left unchecked, the luxury of dissent becomes more and more painful for company and individual.